Wow, I'm really surprised by this news. The court has really been deferential to the police in the past couple of decades, with this and the cell phone search ruling, perhaps this heralds a new trend of the Court being more skeptical?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dog-wont-hunt-cops-cant-keep-you-waiting-k-9s-n345746
Quote
That Dog Won't Hunt: Cops Can't Keep You Waiting for K-9s, Supreme Court Says
By M. Alex Johnson
Cops can't continue to hold a suspect without probable cause even for the few minutes they might need to wait for a drug-sniffing dog to show up, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the 6-3 majority that if a traffic stop is otherwise completed, holding on to the suspect any longer violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The case, Rodriguez v. United States, involves the valid traffic stop of Dennys Rodriguez after he swerved over a highway shoulder line in Valley, Nebraska, in March 2012. Once Officer Morgan Struble had completed writing a warning, he then kept Rodriguez by the side of the road for seven or eight minutes waiting for the dog to show up and sniff the car for possible drugs.
The dog found meth, and Rodriguez was indicted and convicted. But Ginsburg wrote that Struble didn't have probable cause to search the vehicle, and that by dallying long enough for the dog to arrive and provide probable case, he violated the Constitution.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito dissented on the grounds that such a brief stop "is hardly out of the ordinary for a traffic stop by a single officer of a vehicle containing multiple occupants even when no dog sniff is involved."
In an additional dissent, Alito warned that officers would quickly figure out a way to slow the process of checking a driver's license and registration and writing up a ticket to give the K-9 unit time to arrive.
"I would love to be the proverbial fly on the wall when police instructors teach this rule to officers who make traffic stops," Alito wrote.
Well, good on Scalia and Roberts.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2015, 06:26:44 PM
In an additional dissent, Alito warned that officers would quickly figure out a way to slow the process of checking a driver's license and registration and writing up a ticket to give the K-9 unit time to arrive.
"I would love to be the proverbial fly on the wall when police instructors teach this rule to officers who make traffic stops," Alito wrote.
Problem(?) solved.
Well, that's one fewer problem for Jay-Z.
Still, won't the cops just shoot you so you can't escape, and then have the dogs sniff your corpse?
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 21, 2015, 08:25:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2015, 06:26:44 PM
In an additional dissent, Alito warned that officers would quickly figure out a way to slow the process of checking a driver's license and registration and writing up a ticket to give the K-9 unit time to arrive.
"I would love to be the proverbial fly on the wall when police instructors teach this rule to officers who make traffic stops," Alito wrote.
Problem(?) solved.
Scalito is an asshole, to be sure. "We shouldn't enforce the Constitution in this case, because the police will probably find a new way of evading it." It is telling that, even when he couldn't get any other justice to sign off on that opinion, he just went ahead and issued it as an opinion of one.
I am rather surprised to see Scalia with the majority on this one, and even more surprised to see Scalia and Thomas reach different opinions.
Bit odd to slam Alito as Scalito when he and Scalia voted differntely on this particulary issue.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Bit odd to slam Alito as Scalito when he and Scalia voted differntely on this particulary issue.
:huh: I've been calling him Scalito here for, oh, 8+ years now. Bit odd that you choose this time out of the dozens of such references to find it a bit odd. :P
And, yes, as I noted, I was surprised that Scalia didn't vote with Scalito and Thomas. In fact, I noted that in the very post you are responding to.